Opinion Columns > Abstract Poetry > Contact Us > Michael Giardina > Home

Explosive Journalism - Opinion Columns by Michael Giardina

             Hilarious articles, funny columns, blatant journo-scolding.

Seductively Juxta-Exposed
by Michael Giardina

Consider, for a moment, breasts - two soft, firm, luscious breasts. That's right, I said the impish B-word. Twice. And if my description of these tender, perky, pincushions of perfection were any more vivid, the FCC would toss my nuts in a vice grip. Bring it on.

Apparently, we have all forgotten the beauty of the female breast. How else can you explain the $550,000 fine CBS had to pay after Janet Jackson "accidentally" exposed her right (not left) breast during 2004's Super Bowl halftime show?

Clearly, breasts intimidate us. We fear the flesh.

To be blunt, what frightens you? Is it the soft skin, the ferocious fatty tissue, the daring ducts, the lustful lobules, the arrogant areola, or the nasty nipple? I guess I don't understand the laws of cleavage. It's acceptable to expose your upper (superior) breast quadrant, but the lower (inferior) quadrant (the portion cupped by a bra) is lewd and lascivious. Someone needs to look up the definition of symmetrical.

According to most carnivorous censor cops, the truly venomous breast accessory is the nipple. Nobody complains about large lumps of fatty tissue swaying to and fro on "The Howard Stern Show," but they blur out the tiny, reddish-brown nipple. O thank heavens the nasty nipple is perfectly pixelated to stave off our gross perversion.

Last time I checked, the nipple's primary purpose was to feed a baby, to keep it alive. Once again America has confused "life-giving energy" with "offensive corruption." The distinction is subtle:

"Daddy, why is that woman's body blurry?"

"Well, son, those blurry dots are nipples. When you were younger, they kept you alive. Unfortunately, they are now sinful organs that will corrupt your innocence. One peek and you will instantly lust for premarital sex and ruin your future with an unplanned pregnancy. I hope that makes you feel sufficiently fearful and guilty."

"Okay, Dad. I trust your good judgment."

Newsflash: Nobody cares if a nipple slips. Altering the pixel order of an onscreen nipple saves nobody from sin. And why not worry about the entire breast? You don't see people rushing to order opt-in nipple enhancement surgery, do you?

Then again, with all rules, there are exceptions. For example, it is apparently OK to expose the entire breast under highly specific circumstances.

To receive a "Get-Out-Of-Prude-Land Free Card," you must spend most of your life starring in porn, your breasts must be filled with 75 percent nonhuman silicon substitute and your exposed treasures must hide behind see-through, black nylon cloth. Shall I cite proof?

The beloved Pamela Anderson exposed her two semi-artificial mountain peaks at her Comedy Central roast and did not receive a $550,000 fine. Then again, she probably spends more than that on maintenance.

Don't get me wrong, not all breasts are innocent. Tawny Peaks, a stripper, once gave a man whiplash by pounding his head with her giant, 69HH-sized pals. We censor television nipples, while this lady sells the silicon pouches out of her chest on eBay for $14,000. Censor her. Make sure her deadly weapons stay away from my children, but don't censor images. Doing so teaches our youth that human bodies are dirty, shameful and grotesque.

In Eugene Delacroix's painting, "Liberty Leading the People," the soft, breasts of liberty stand tall above rotting, dead soldiers. So, reach out, grab onto and caress liberty. Yes, just suck up that fear and give that person next to you a nice, proud fondle. You might want to ask permission first. Hey, just consider this column a conversation starter.